Debts and alienation of property — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. A father's power to alienate joint family property for his own antecedent debt is distinct from a Karta's ordinary power because:

   • It requires a court order first
   • It doesn't need to relate to family necessity at all (correct answer)
   • It can only be used by the eldest son
   • It applies only to movable property

   Explanation. Unlike the Karta's 'legal necessity' power, a father's antecedent-debt power under Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad doesn't need to relate to family necessity — only to not be avyavaharika.

2. In Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad (1924), Lord Dunedin held that an 'antecedent debt' must be:

   • Antecedent in time only
   • Antecedent in fact only
   • Antecedent both in time and in fact (correct answer)
   • Guaranteed by a bank

   Explanation. An antecedent debt must be antecedent both in time and in fact — genuinely independent of, not part of, the transaction being challenged.

3. Under the propositions in Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad, if a father incurs a debt for a non-immoral purpose, he may:

   • Never expose the family estate to any consequence
   • Expose the estate to being taken in execution proceedings on a decree for that debt (correct answer)
   • Only be personally liable, with no effect on the estate
   • Only borrow with the sons' written consent

   Explanation. A father may, by incurring such a debt, expose the family estate to execution proceedings on a decree for that debt — one of Lord Dunedin's five propositions.

4. A mortgage created by a father is binding on the joint family estate only if:

   • It is registered within 30 days
   • It is made to discharge an antecedent debt (correct answer)
   • All sons sign it
   • It is for less than half the property's value

   Explanation. Per Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad, a father's mortgage binds the family estate only if made to discharge an antecedent debt.

5. Under the rule of Damdupat, the interest recoverable on a debt at any one time cannot exceed:

   • Half the principal
   • The principal amount then outstanding (correct answer)
   • Twice the principal
   • There is no limit

   Explanation. Under Damdupat, the interest recoverable at any one time is capped at no more than the principal amount then outstanding.

6. When does the rule of Damdupat stop applying?

   • It never stops applying
   • Once a suit to recover the loan is filed (correct answer)
   • After exactly one year
   • Once the debtor dies

   Explanation. Once a suit is filed to recover the loan, Damdupat stops applying going forward — the court may award interest at its discretion for the period after filing.

7. If a debtor repays part of an old debt and fresh interest starts accruing on the reduced balance, the Damdupat rule:

   • No longer applies at all
   • Reapplies to that new, reduced position (correct answer)
   • Doubles the allowed interest
   • Applies only to movable property debts

   Explanation. Damdupat doesn't erase excess interest forever — it reapplies to the fresh position once a reduced balance starts accruing new interest.

8. Which of the following would most likely be treated as an antecedent debt under Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad?

   • A debt raised in the same document as the mortgage meant to pay it
   • A debt the father took two years earlier for his own personal use, wholly separate from the current mortgage (correct answer)
   • A debt for an illegal purpose taken yesterday
   • A debt taken by the son, not the father

   Explanation. A debt genuinely prior in time and independent in fact — like one taken two years earlier for the father's own use — satisfies the antecedent debt test; a same-transaction or illegal debt does not.